Transcription

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION JOAN FREDERICKS c/o Alphonse A. Gerhardstein 617 Vine Street #14009 Cincinnati, OH 45251, vs. Plaintiff, JOHN E. POTTER, et. al. United States Postmaster General Washington, DC c/o James Coombe Assistant United States Attorney 221 East Fourth St, Suite 400 Cincinnati, OH 45202, Defendant. Case No. 106-CV-113 Judge Weber Magistrate Judge Hogan SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This is a civil rights action challenging the unlawful failure of the United States Postal Service (USPS) to accommodate its employee s disability. Plaintiff Joan Fredericks suffers from chondromalacia patella and deranged knee, a knee condition which causes the cartilage underneath the kneecap to soften and degenerate. This condition was identified as an occupational injury in March Ms. Fredericks consulted an orthopedist who issued work restrictions limiting the amount of her walking, climbing stairs, kneeling, bending, and stooping at work. As a reasonable accommodation for this disability, Ms. Fredericks sought to be assigned to a position, many of which existed, that would comply with her doctor s restrictions. Defendant ignored Ms. Fredericks repeated requests for accommodation and eventually separated her from employment with the USPS. The USPS retaliated against Ms. Fredericks for 1

2 requesting an accommodation and for filing an EEO Complaint. Plaintiff seeks reinstatement, back pay and benefits, compensatory damages, and reasonable attorney fees. 2. This Second Amended Complaint adds allegations and a retaliation cause of action related to Plaintiff s second EEO Complaint, which was recently dismissed by the Equal Opportunity Commission. II. JURISDICTION 3. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff s federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C This Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff s state law claims under 28 U.S.C III. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff Joan Fredericks is a citizen of Hamilton County, Ohio and at all relevant times was employed by the United States Postal Service in Cincinnati, Ohio. She is an individual with a disability within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 705(20)(A). 5. Defendant John E. Potter is the Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service. He is sued as the head of the United States Postal Service. IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS 6. Plaintiff Joan Fredericks began working for Defendant United States Postal Service in Cincinnati, Ohio, August 29, 1998 as a part-time flex clerk. In November 2003 she became a regular full-time clerk. She was separated from service March 4, Plaintiff Injured Her Knee At Work And Became Disabled 7. Ms. Fredericks injured her right knee working in a new assignment that caused her to walk up and down stairs all day combined with standing on concrete and lifting 70 pound sacks of mail. After several months of off and on swelling and pain she sought medical 2

3 attention. On March 28, 2002, after an MRI, Ms. Fredericks was diagnosed with chondromalacia patella, a knee condition which causes the cartilage underneath the kneecap to soften and degenerate. 8. Ms. Fredericks knee condition limits her major life activities of working, walking, standing, lifting, sitting, doing household chores, socializing, caring for her family, and living. She is disabled. She has at all times been able to do the essential functions of her job as a USPS clerk with reasonable accommodations. 9. Ms. Fredericks doctor permitted her to return to work on April 1, 2002 with restrictions that limited her walking, climbing stairs, kneeling, bending and stooping at work. Requests for Reasonable Accommodations Denied 10. On April 8, 2002, Ms. Fredericks returned to work. She requested a limited duty job which allowed her to work within her restrictions. She was assigned to such a job for only four hours a day. 11. However, soon after, on May 17, 2002, Richard Hohenstatt, a USPS manager, informed Ms. Fredericks that the USPS would no longer provide her with work within her restrictions. 12. Mr. Hohenstatt explained that he could not provide her with a job because she could not walk. Ms. Fredericks explained that she could walk and gave him her latest medical restrictions dated May 16, 2002 which stated she could walk four hours a day. He disregarded the medical document and told her he could not provide her with a job. 13. Since the USPS refused to accommodate her disability and Mr. Hohenstatt shut down the interactive process, Ms. Fredericks was off work for five months. 3

4 14. At that time, there were positions available at the Post Office that fell within Ms. Fredericks restrictions. 15. In October 2002, the Post Office, without explanation or discussion about her needs, offered Ms. Fredericks a job. She went back to work October 11, On November 1, 2002, the Post Office moved her to a job as a loose mail clerk where she could sit and sort and repair loose mail. She was able to perform the essential functions of this job. In fact her doctor noted in January 2003 that she had marked improvement in her need because she had a job where she could sit. 16. In March 2003, the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Worker s Compensation Programs (OWCP) sent Ms. Fredericks to a physician who confirmed her diagnosis of chondromalacia patella, and stated that her work restrictions were permanent. As a result, the OWCP directed the USPS on April 7, 2003 and again on May 9, 2003 to place Ms. Fredericks in a permanent job position that met her restrictions. The USPS did not respond to the OWCP. 17. On October 8, 2003, the USPS, involuntarily reassigned Ms. Fredericks beginning October 18 to third shift, beginning work at 700 pm and ending at 350 am, thereby taking her off her second shift loose mail clerk job. On October 21, 2003, the USPS offered Ms. Fredericks to a third shift limited duty position which required her to perform tasks that were outside of her restrictions. Ms. Fredericks refused the re-assignment because it required her to climb stairs. In fact, Ms. Fredericks had refused the offer of this same job three times earlier for the same reason. The USPS never offered Ms. Fredericks a job on third shift which would reasonably accommodate her disability, despite their ability to do so. Nor did the USPS accommodate Ms. Fredericks by reassigning her to the loose mail clerk job which did accommodate her disability. 4

5 Nor did the USPS make any attempt to engage Ms. Fredericks in the interactive process to discuss her accommodation needs. 18. On October 24, 2003 Ms. Fredericks stopped working. She has not worked since. On February 22, 2004, Ms. Fredericks began receiving worker s compensation benefits at 66% of her regular pay. FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS 19. While she was on worker s compensation benefits, Ms. Fredericks was obligated to return to suitable work. The OWCP office tried several times to get the USPS to offer Ms. Fredericks a reasonable accommodation, however the USPS refused. 20. In November 2003, the Post office contacted the OWCP requesting that the OWCP inform Ms. Fredericks of her responsibility to work. The OWCP responded that the position the USPS offered Ms. Fredericks on third shift was rejected because the position allegedly required her to climb stairs, which she is restricted from doing. The OWCP asked the USPS to explain whether or not the job offered required Ms. Fredericks to climb stairs. The USPS verified the position required Ms. Fredericks to walk up and down 3 steps at least four times a shift (not including restroom breaks). The USPS never offered to accommodate Ms. Fredericks need to avoid stairs. 21. In February 2004 the OWCP told the USPS that the DOL had made several attempts to secure a suitable job with the USPS but had received no response from the USPS. Therefore, Ms. Fredericks would be automatically placed on worker s compensation until the USPS gave her a position within her restrictions. The USPS never offered Ms. Fredericks a position that accommodated her disability either directly or through the OWCP. 5

6 22. On January 14, 2005, after over a year of not working, Ms. Fredericks wrote to Joey Bramlage, the Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator at the USPS, requesting a reasonable accommodation. In response, the USPS asked for more medical documentation. Ms. Fredericks responded, but the USPS asked for more medical documentation, threatening her that if she failed to comply with this request it could affect [her] claim and/or employment status. Following her next doctor s appointment Ms. Fredericks sent the medical documentation requested on March 21, Seven months went by without a response from the USPS. On October 25, 2005 Ms. Bramlage asked Ms. Fredericks for additional medical information. Ms. Fredericks promptly supplied this information on November 18, She was never asked for additional medical information. 24. On January 5, 2006 Ms. Fredericks filed an EEO Complaint of discrimination for failing to accommodate her disability( first EEO Complaint ). Defendant was aware of the EEO Complaint soon after it was filed. 25. Ms. Bramlage met with Ms. Fredericks on January 20, 2006 to discuss her reasonable accommodation request. Three days later, on January 25, 2006, the USPS denied Ms. Frederick s request for a reasonable accommodation because she was not a person with a disability as defined by the law. A month later, on February 24, 2006, the USPS separated Ms. Fredericks from work. This separation began on March 4, Defendant s denial of Plaintiff s request for accommodation was pretextual and in retaliation for Plaintiff s request for an accommodation and her filing her first EEO Complaint. Defendant s separation of Ms. Fredericks from work was also retaliatory. 6

7 27. As a result of Defendant s discriminatory actions, failure to accommodate her, and retaliation, Ms. Fredericks has suffered and will continue to suffer serious mental anguish, humiliation, and serious emotional distress. She has also suffered a loss of wages and benefits. ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION AND RETALIATION 28. On January 5, 2006, Ms. Fredericks filed her first administrative EEO Complaint challenging the decision that she was not offered a reasonable accommodation. Her first EEO Complaint was dismissed and she was issued a right to sue letter. (Ex. A). She timely filed this action on March 2, On May 12, 2006, Ms. Fredericks filed her second administrative EEO Complaint challenging the decision she was not disabled (and therefore not entitled to a reasonable accommodation) and challenging the USPS decision to separate her from service as retaliation for her having filed the first EEO Complaint. Her second EEO Complaint has been dismissed by the Equal Opportunity Commission (Ex. B) and this Court now has jurisdiction over this second complaint. V. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION REHABILITATION ACT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION 30. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of a perceived or actual disability and failed to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff s disability, as is required by the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C VI. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - REHABILITATION ACT - RETALIATION 26. Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in a statutorily protected activity under the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C

9 /s/ Jennifer L. Branch CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 22, 2007, a copy of the foregoing pleading was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties for whom counsel has entered an appearance by operation of the Court s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court s system. I further certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading and the Notice of Electronic Filing has been served by ordinary U.S. mail upon all parties for whom counsel has not yet entered an appearance electronically. s/ Jennifer L. Branch Attorney for Plaintiff 9

JAMES W. JOHNSTON ATTORNEY AT LAW 00 S. Flower Street, Suite10 Los Angeles, California 00 State Bar No. (1) 1- Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff and SEAN STANLEY COMPLAINT: 3-05-1027 Plaintiff-Intervenor

JAMES W. JOHNSTON ATTORNEY AT LAW 00 S. Flower Street, Suite 10 Los Angeles, California 001 State Bar No. (1) 1- Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO,

Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 JEFFREY GOLD, a single individual; vs. Plaintiff, SUE RAHR, Individually, and as Sheriff

Case 814-cv-02421-MSS-AEP Document 1 Filed 09/25/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Tampa Division UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Case: 1:13-cv-00903-SSB-SKB Doc #: 9 Filed: 03/11/14 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 31 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI THOMAS E. PEREZ, Secretary

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION KATHERINE DORNEMANN, v. Plaintiff, COBB ENERGY PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE FOUNDATION, INC., Defendant. Civil Action

CAUSE NO. DEBORAH SHAKLEE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF DENTON, Defendant. IN THE DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE TO THE HONORABLE

Case 5:10-at-99999 5:10-cv-00097-sgw Document -jgw 54 Document (Court only 1 Filed 09/21/10 Page 1 1 of of 6 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA HARRISONBURG DIVISION

Case: 1:16-cv-11603 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/23/16 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:1 JAMES KWON, Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION v. CHICK-FIL-A

Case 1:13-cv-01958-ESH Document 1 Filed 12/09/13 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. PROVIDENCE HOSPITAL,

CAUSE NO. AMY E. LYNCH, IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff v. JUDICIAL DISTRICT CITY OF AUSTIN a/k/a AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant. TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION Megon Riedel v. Jackson County, Missouri, John Doe, Jane Doe I, and Jane Doe II Plaintiff, Defendants. No. 15-cv-803 JURY

No. SHELTON CHARLES, IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, v. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT TEXAS LOTTERY COMMISSION, and GARY GRIEF, in his Individual and Official Capacity Defendants. TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF

Case 1:14-cv-05441-JBW-RML Document 1 Filed 09/17/14 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------x EQUAL

Case: 1:14-cv-10285 Document #: 1 Filed: 12/23/14 Page 1of12 PagelD #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V. Plaintiff,

Federal Pro Se Clinic CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA How to Write a Complaint Step : Pleading Paper Complaints must be written on pleading paper. Pleading paper is letter-sized (8. x paper that has the

Case 2:16-cv-00879-TFM Document 1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WENDY A. BELL O TOOLE, professionally known as WENDY BELL, Plaintiff,

Case 3:10-cv-02236-DRD Document 31 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO DAVID ASHE Plaintiff, CIVIL NO. 10-2236 ( DRD ) vs. DISTRIBUIDORA NORMA,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. SAFELITE GLASS CORP. Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. COMPLAINT

Case 5:13-cv-00892-XR Document 1 Filed 09/27/13 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION LETISHA N. PATTERSON, Plaintiff, -v- Civil No. 5:13-cv-892

Case 1:15-cv-23825-KMW Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2016 Page 1 of 8 DAVID BALDWIN, v. Plaintiff, ANTHONY FOXX, in his official capacity as Secretary of The United States Department of Transportation,

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------- x FELIX ANDUJAR, -against- Plaintiff, TERRACE REALTY ASSOCIATES LLC, 66-72 FORT

CASE 0:12-cv-02811-RHK-SER Document 1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA File No. Julius Chad Zimmerman, Plaintiff, v. Dave Bellows, in his individual and official

Case 1:15-cv-00877-GLS-TWD Document 1 Filed 07/21/15 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI JACKSON DIVISION MELISSA ROSS PLAINTIFFS vs. MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION d/b/a MISSISSIPPI SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF Civil

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. AMADO LÓPEZ, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; MONTES DE OCA, CHRIS MASTON AND UNKNOWN NUMBER of UNNAMED UNITED STATES CUSTOMS

1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS Plaintiff, -against- TEAM LAURINO LLC, d/b/a MCDONALD'S, and ABASCO "DOE, COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants. X Plaintiff, Jamel Johnson,

Case 3:16-cv-00543-VLB Document 1 Filed 04/06/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT DAVID KELLY, RICHARD NORKO, ANNETTE DOBBS and PETER DELLOLIO, for themselves and others

Case 5:13-cv-00960-XR Document 14 Filed 12/06/13 Page 1 of 6 In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Christine Barreras v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. SA-13-CV-960 ORDER On this

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAROL PARKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, PARADE ENTERPRISES, LLC, No. 3:14-CV-08084-MAS-DEA AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 3:10-cv-01903-K Document 1 Filed 09/22/10 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, CIVIL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION WALTER ALLEN ROTHGERY, v. Plaintiff, GILLESPIE COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendant. Cause No. ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Plaintiff Walter Allen